In her novel, “To Kill A Mockingbird,” prominent novelist Harper Lee writes, “Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.” Lee’s claim clearly sparks a flame of pride in the readers’ minds and hearts. However, this flame is somewhat subdued by the outcome of the case later presented in the novel. The synopsis of the case was that an African American man was accused of rape against a young White woman; the outcome is that the judge imprisoned the African American man although he was, in fact, innocent. This outcome proves against Lee’s previous claim. Consequently, I refute Lee’s statement that “in our courts all men are created equal,” due to the fact that during several periods in history, courts were not places of justice but rather those of tyranny and cruelty. Surely they provided the people with no more equality than what was shown on the streets.

In Charles Dickens’ celebrated novel, “A Tale of Two Cities,” he visualized the injustice evident in English courts of the late 18^th century, through one character known as “Mr. Attorney General.” This character speaks through Dickens’ tongue regarding a case, “That, for these reasons, the jury, being a loyal jury (as he (Mr. Attorney General) knew they were), and being a responsible jury (as they knew they were), must positively find the prisoner Guilty, and make an end of him, whether they liked it or not………That head (the accused’s) Mr. Attorney General concluded by demanding of them, in the name of everything he could think of with a round turn in it, and on the faith of his solemn asseveration that he already considered the prisoner as good as dead and gone.” In short, Mr. Attorney General presents his argument by providing little to no concrete evidence of the accused’s crime. Although the accused was later proven to be innocent, Mr. Attorney General’s attitude towards the case was no different than that of countless judges and attorneys who sought to present their arguments through shows of audacity or bravado instead of through careful analyzing of evidence, and the use of justice as the principle of utmost importance.

Furthermore, this character type was later presented by J. K. Rowling in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” in Cornelius Fudge, a character similar in temperament and disposition to Mr. Attorney General. In the eighth chapter, Fudge says, “He’s been thinking it through and decided dementors would make a very nice little cover story, very nice indeed. Muggles can’t see dementors, can they, boy? Highly convenient, highly convenient…..so it’s just your word and no witnesses.” Later, in response to the availability of a witness, Fudge states, “We haven’t got time to listen to more taradiddles, I’m afraid, Dumbledore. I want this dealt with quickly.” Once again, another piece of literature visualizes the injustice in courts. The judge does not wish to hear the witness or the accused’s defense; this attitude leads to an outcome saturated with prejudice and biased opinions.

Lastly, it is not incorrect to retaliate that these pieces of literature were written regarding courts and cases in countries other than the United States. However, I present the following questions. If judges were proven to be capable of such discriminate behavior in other parts of the world, what is to stop American judges and attorneys from developing the same attitude? If some judges have proven not to follow the simple law that states that “the accused is innocent until proven guilty,” is it logical for us to state that “in our courts all men are created equal?” Is it plausible for one to have complete faith in the judicial system if judges have proven themselves to be but human, to be susceptible to greed and personal prejudices? Is it correct for us to assume that courts are places of infallible goodness? I would think not.

In conclusion, I do not underestimate the principles on which the United States was built, nor do I pretend to understand the depth and complexity of the judicial system. I make no claim against the notable judges and attorneys of our age who hold the principle of justice as their lead towards solving all cases. I merely make but one statement. It does not do for the people to think of courts as places of unerring values. Injustice, however mitigated, is always present, in all courts, in all countries. As previously stated, judges are but human and as capable of injustice and tyranny as a doctor or architect or writer. Lee’s claim might be held true for certain cases. However, such a claim should not be generalized.